View Full Version : Public votes with its feet re 50 over cricket
Gavin Excell
7 Feb 2010, 17:16
Putting arguments about which format is better aside, clearly the public prefer 20-20 judging by todays predictably poor crowd on a perfect summers day compared to Friday nights 20 over match.
I find it interesting on a purely commercial level that the paying public is screaming out for 20-20 yet the provider is denying it to them and basically telling them to shove it - have this other stuff instead. Fascinating really.
Given money talks in sport, can't see this arrangement lasting long.
Not to mention the 1,273,000 who tuned into the T20 match on Friday night, making it the highest rating show of the night and far out-rating any ODI match this summer so far.
Bombers_Forever
7 Feb 2010, 17:45
The problem is there is still too much ODI cricket. Why did we need 5 games against Pakistan? 3 is plenty. I think also the problem is the ticket prices for one dayers. You definently get more value for your dollar with 20/20.
The problem is there is still too much ODI cricket. Why did we need 5 games against Pakistan? 3 is plenty. I think also the problem is the ticket prices for one dayers. You definently get more value for your dollar with 20/20.
Yeah, and then we get 7 ODI's against England next year. Why would we want to see more ODI's than test matches? There should be 3 T20I's (and if they must, 3 ODI's).
The amount of T20 cricket is fine as it is, the amount of OD cricket is not.
OzBomber
7 Feb 2010, 17:59
I usually go to the One Dayers, but was busy today.
I think the fixturing of this match was poor. It was obvious that after the T20 there would be less people at the ODI. Not many people would want to go to the cricket twice inside 3 days. I think they should've had the One Dayer at the SCG and had the Melbourne game next Sunday, or had the ODI before the T20.
Gavin Excell
7 Feb 2010, 18:15
The problem is there is still too much ODI cricket. Why did we need 5 games against Pakistan? 3 is plenty. I think also the problem is the ticket prices for one dayers. You definently get more value for your dollar with 20/20.
how do they compare?
BarneyBent
7 Feb 2010, 18:52
It's not so much that T20 cricket is preferred over OD cricket; it's just that OD games are dime a dozen now. We have so many, if you miss one OD game you can catch another in two nights' time, and watch the other 5 games of the series. Whereas there'll be one, maybe two T20 games at the start or end of a series. Miss those, you have to wait until the end of the next ODI series.
Halve the number of ODI games, make them events again, and replace them with T20 games. Make ODI games an event again, and start playing actual series of T20 games. That way, we might actually bring our T20 team up to the standard of our ODI and Test teams too.
Anyone got official crowd figure from today's ODI?
OzBomber
7 Feb 2010, 19:03
It's not so much that T20 cricket is preferred over OD cricket; it's just that OD games are dime a dozen now. We have so many, if you miss one OD game you can catch another in two nights' time, and watch the other 5 games of the series. Whereas there'll be one, maybe two T20 games at the start or end of a series. Miss those, you have to wait until the end of the next ODI series.
Halve the number of ODI games, make them events again, and replace them with T20 games. Make ODI games an event again, and start playing actual series of T20 games. That way, we might actually bring our T20 team up to the standard of our ODI and Test teams too.
Agree with all your points about ODIs, but not about the T20s. Keep them as is. 3 (4 if you count the All Stars match at the start of every summer) for the summer is fine. The novelty of it will wear off if we start having 3 match T20 series. Make it a 3 match ODI series, 3 tests and a T20. With subtle changes here and there for big series against nations like England, India and South Africa.
Ill Chicken
7 Feb 2010, 19:09
Let's start another thread on the same subject, go in the same direction and don't come up with any credible solutions. .
It's not so much that T20 cricket is preferred over OD cricket; it's just that OD games are dime a dozen now.
I disagree with this. It's impossible to deny that T20 cricket is far more popular than ODI cricket now, regardless of the amount of matches that are played in each. The crowds were actually growing consistently throughout the T20 Big Bash, which contained far more games than the recent ODI series against Pakistan.
That way, we might actually bring our T20 team up to the standard of our ODI and Test teams too.
Substitute Paine and Marsh in for Haddin and Paine into our current T20 side and I reckon it's nearly a stronger team than our ODI outfit.
Agree with all your points about ODIs, but not about the T20s. Keep them as is. 3 (4 if you count the All Stars match at the start of every summer) for the summer is fine. The novelty of it will wear off if we start having 3 match T20 series. Make it a 3 match ODI series, 3 tests and a T20. With subtle changes here and there for big series against nations like England, India and South Africa.
I actually think this is the wrong way to go about T20's and I think that everyone is being far too cautious about T20's and their potential popularity. AFL matches are still popular. MLB (Baseball) matches are still popular in the US. What makes people think that T20 cricket can't sustain it's popularity.
Unlike Tests or ODI's, it doesn't require whole days of attention and dedication. It is a 3 hour game (a similar length to most of the popular sports throughout the world).
Also, the crowds seem to actually be growing. The game is becoming more popular as it gains more exposure. The players are becoming better at the game. Mastering the game with either bat or ball is becoming an artform (and much more difficult than mastering one dayers).
I don't understand why people are acting so cautiously. I have a feeling it is mostly the Test purists who are afraid that T20's will completely saturate the cricketing world and Tests will cease to exist. Well I'll put it this way - If people still want to see and play Test match cricket, the crowds will remain respectable and the game will continue. I'm pretty sure that Test matches will still be relevant in future years (although I think the time for ODI matches to be stopped is now).
The fact of the matter is, T20 has the opportunity to make cricket a dominant worldwide sport, with healthy crowds everywhere it is played. Some people are afraid of the impact that it might have, and use the excuse that it is a "novelty" that will wear off. I disagree - Has baseball lost it's popularity in the US - No. So why would a similar game like T20 cricket lose its lustre? The only reason that the popularity of one dayer's has worn off is because T20 is a better game. That's not going to happen to T20's though, it is the perfect length for a spectator sport and no substitute will be found.
It's not so much that T20 cricket is preferred over OD cricket; it's just that OD games are dime a dozen now. .
Not true - we have less one days than a decade ago. But people WANT T20! ODI's are neither important cricket nor fun entertainment.
Give us a five match T20 season, plus 3 ODI's.
BarneyBent
7 Feb 2010, 20:09
Not true - we have less one days than a decade ago. But people WANT T20! ODI's are neither important cricket nor fun entertainment.
Give us a five match T20 season, plus 3 ODI's.
I'm not saying we're playing more, but ODIs are the middle child. When ODI was the only other option to Test cricket, you could play as many as you wanted and the public lapped it up. But now by contrast, you've got T20s showing them up. T20s are now the hectic, fast paced, "rock and roll" form of the game; ODIs have to find a new niche, and they'll find that by being more exclusive, more of an occasion.
They should keep scheduling 5 ODIs followed by 1 T20I, but get the tourists' T20 specialists out in time for the 4th ODI. Then if it's 3-0 after 3 or 3-1 after 4, replace the remaining games with T20Is. And T20 is all about getting results, so book the venue for the scheduled T20 for the following day and play another one then if it's tied.
Ill Chicken
8 Feb 2010, 01:38
T20's will amount to the same thing if you start playing a five match series. There has to be a point. There has to be an international roster that amounts to a championship ladder and something worth playing for instead of some bullshit system made up by the ICC where the reflection is largely limited ie India being the number 1 test nation in the world.
Nobody wants to get rid of dead rubbers because venues won't see the money yet nobody goes to games because nobody wants to see a dead rubber. Nobody wants to watch 50 over cricket because it doesn't mean anything but the boards are all about the money and don't want to create an international playing roster where teams are featured equally and the money is pooled and divided because nobody is about developing cricket as a whole, they're all in it for themselves.
There is nothing new in this thread.
There is absolutely no reason to keep playing ODIs anymore . the public have shown that T20 is a far more popular format.
One-Day cricket has 3 things going for it, over and above Test cricket.
1. Result on the same day (that's the most important).
2. More runs scored - boundaries in particular. Higher run-rate all round.
3. Better chance of close finishes.
Well, T20 does all that - and in most cases does it better than ODIs.
This war is only going to end one way - T20s will basically kill off ODIs. Sure, T20s will fall away a bit from their present level of popularity, but they will always remain more popular than ODIs.
Wish Wellingtons
8 Feb 2010, 12:53
I went to both the T20 and the ODI. The ODI was boring as anything and the T20 was one of the most exciting sporting events I've been to. The atmosphere was great and the quality of the game was exceptional. To see such quality bowling and fielding performances proves that T20 can deliver even if we aren't seeing ten runs an over.
I have never like T20 but am finding myself swayed, in my opinion ODIs have to change somehow, they just seem to be floating in limbo. No one wants to see spread fields and 30 overs of batsmen knocking around singles, and people especially don't want to see 50 overs of crap batsmen playing for their average.
Test cricket is the untouchable, T20 is the future, right now ODIs do nothing for me.
Ill Chicken
8 Feb 2010, 12:54
There is absolutely no reason to keep playing ODIs anymore . the public have shown that T20 is a far more popular format.
One-Day cricket has 3 things going for it, over and above Test cricket.
1. Result on the same day (that's the most important).
2. More runs scored - boundaries in particular. Higher run-rate all round.
3. Better chance of close finishes.
Well, T20 does all that - and in most cases does it better than ODIs.
This war is only going to end one way - T20s will basically kill off ODIs. Sure, T20s will fall away a bit from their present level of popularity, but they will always remain more popular than ODIs.
How does that fit in with the tier nations which cricket is almost based solely on 50 overs and has been one of the reason for the dramatic increase in their ability and gives them opportunity to push for the next level, ie the WC. 50 over cricket is a better lead up for them into 100 over 200 over cricket. Without 50 over cricket, the lesser nations will struggle. For the good of cricket, ODI's need to stay. All the solutions that are being presented by yourself and others, don't actual take into the account the whole scheme of things and the way cricket is developed.
As pointed out previously, whats the point in replacing all the ODI's with T20's when the same thing will happen? It's not a solution, it's just milking a format until people get bored. It's weak as piss and you will find that in 10 years that T20's will be heading down the same path if ODI's are discarded.
Admiral Afterworld
8 Feb 2010, 13:11
Anyone got official crowd figure from today's ODI?
Friday's T20: 60,054
Sunday's ODI: 25,463
Kim Hagdorn
8 Feb 2010, 13:14
Make them 40 over matches, it's a better length and will help in removing the boring middle, and it's still a 'day' of cricket.
TorresIsGod
8 Feb 2010, 13:22
I think it's just the series scheduling which is poor.
I mean, 5 ODI's against Pakistan and then 5 more aganist WI, it's just plain silly.
The same was with the 7 ODI's against England, absolutely stupid, especially after we had won the series after 4 games.
Cut the 7 series matches down to 5 and the 5 series matches down to 3.
It was a dumb move to have that Pakistan T20 at the same ground 2 days before an ODI.Of course more are going to go to the T20 if they choose to only go to 1 game that weekend.Don't forget the figures for the T20 were helped by a large Pakistan supporter turn out.Had it been an ODI game and yesterdays a T20 game agaist the Windies I reckon the crowd figures would've been much closer.
As the commentators pointed out last night, there is only 1 ground in England that can hold 25,000 and aside from the obvious exceptions, 25,000 is a very good crowd in most stadiums around the world
Bombers_Forever
8 Feb 2010, 14:21
I know this might not be relevant but with the current schedule, a Friday and Sunday night, that causes problems. Anyone going on a Friday misses the start unless they take a day off work/School. Similarly, on a Sunday, the game finishes close to 10pm, not ideal for anyone going to work/school the next day. Saturday solves both problems but that means only one game a weekend.
sunday a night that will eat into the crowds / friday night promote more crowds?
i see that there are often ideas given to revitalize odi's, but at some point you have to stop catering to perceived problems and realize that maybe different crowds, too, may be part of the differences between the formats. test and odi have long had different crowd numbers. maybe what we are experiencing is just what will always be the norm rather than a problem.
there are very few 'solutions' provided to spice up ODI's (for example an interesting one is removing the bowling 10 over restrictions) that cannot be in turn exploited, effectively ruining the game for people who feel it needs more stimulation. better bowlers will bowl more overs and dry up scoring - this doesn't please the people disatisfied with the middle overs.
i think the scheduling could allow more even crowds, but it might be time to accept that crowd numbers will always be like this no matter what, rather than trying to fix one up all the time.
OzBomber
8 Feb 2010, 16:32
Why can't Cricket Australia start the Sunday games earlier? Start them at 12-12:30 and have them finish at around 8:30pm. That way most people will be home before 10pm and won't be too bad for the kids with school the next day. With the 10pm finish, many people won't get home until after 11pm and there's no way kids can go to bed at that time and not be affected by it the next day.
Why can't Cricket Australia start the Sunday games earlier? Start them at 12-12:30 and have them finish at around 8:30pm.
Simple answer - Channel Nine
OzBomber
8 Feb 2010, 17:53
Simple answer - Channel Nine
Yeah, but it's not like they're gonna lose many viewers if it finishes an hour or so later.
rdhopkins2
8 Feb 2010, 18:09
I would have gone but started a new job today so wasn't really up for a late night.
Heat may have played a factor for some.
Fridays game may have also influenced the decision not to go too.
Certainly if you are travelling out to Glen Waverley and experienced the replacement train bus service on Fri night you wouldn't have gone either.
Cotchin 9
8 Feb 2010, 18:40
It was a dumb move to have that Pakistan T20 at the same ground 2 days before an ODI.Of course more are going to go to the T20 if they choose to only go to 1 game that weekend.Don't forget the figures for the T20 were helped by a large Pakistan supporter turn out.Had it been an ODI game and yesterdays a T20 game agaist the Windies I reckon the crowd figures would've been much closer.
Hit the nail on the head, did anyone really think that they would get a good crowd for the ODI (around 40,000) when the T20 attracted 60,000??
Alberton_Magpie
8 Feb 2010, 22:45
Nov-Dec
3 x Tests vs Team A
3 x 20/20s vs Team A
Dec-Jan
International Break Domestic 20/20 Comeptiton
Jan-Feb
3 x Tests vs Team B
3 x 20/20s vs Team B
What I find is
- Too much International Cricket, its getting worse
- Too many games against average oppenents who do not provide competiton
Ill Chicken
8 Feb 2010, 23:57
What I find is
- Too much International Cricket, its getting worse
- Too many games against average oppenents who do not provide competiton
Can you back this up with some figures?
Bombers_Forever
10 Feb 2010, 04:19
8,000 at the Adelaide Oval.........ouch. I know the weather had a role but the schedulling was worse. Usually the cricket is over by now, having one dayers in Feb when most people are back at school/work is laughable.
At the very least, the final game of the international summer should be at the end of January - perhaps Australia Day can be the 'swansong'. Then the players can rest up for upcoming international tours, or put in an appearance or two for their respective state side.
I still prefer the ODI world cup (even though it's poorly fixtured) to the T20 world cup.
Much harder to win and 50 overs gives you time to claw back if you lose early wickets. One bad over in T20 and you could be knocked out of the tournament.
That's about he best thing it has to offer the game of cricket IMO, in a lot of other areas T20 probably has it covered.
8,000 at Adelaide yesterday!!! ODI cricket is finished.
eddiesmith
10 Feb 2010, 08:03
Yeah, but it's not like they're gonna lose many viewers if it finishes an hour or so later.
It fits in perfectly with their schedule with the break falling at 6:00, they start it earlier and we will miss 30 minutes during the 2nd innings for the news
Lets face it, Sunday games are more about TV ratings than crowds at the game
Wallaby
10 Feb 2010, 08:53
It's all about TV ratings. There would have been 20-50 times the number watching on TV than were at the game.
In Melbourne, they no longer even pretend the crowd is important - when was the last time an MCG Test or ODI was not fully live into Melbourne? I remember when we only used to get the first 2 hours of an ODI, and only the tes session of test matches.
Besides, if you're at the game, it's a bit hard to nip out and buy the sponsors products.
Jimthegreat
10 Feb 2010, 13:30
ODIs need to be played before the Test Series as a lead-up when the care factor is higher, not after when it seems anti-climatic after the big-show (Tests) is done. Play the 20/20s after where people will go anyway over 3 matches
Maybe go back to the older days and make ODIs 40 8-ball overs. Still 10 overs of field restrictions and 2 power plays, batting and bowling. Psychology the "slog-on" will still start at 10 overs out. Less slower play in the middle. While it's actually more ball (320 v 300) the fact it's still 40 overs might help.
Just an idea.
It's all about TV ratings. There would have been 20-50 times the number watching on TV than were at the game.
In Melbourne, they no longer even pretend the crowd is important - when was the last time an MCG Test or ODI was not fully live into Melbourne? I remember when we only used to get the first 2 hours of an ODI, and only the tes session of test matches.
Besides, if you're at the game, it's a bit hard to nip out and buy the sponsors products.
A completely valid point, but the cricket rated shithouse last night as well. Nine came 3rd overall and was slaughtered in the key demographics.
Although obviously that the game was over by 8 and they were forced to show filler programs would have had a fair bit to do with the audience figures.
Damon_3388
11 Feb 2010, 03:03
It's all about TV ratings. There would have been 20-50 times the number watching on TV than were at the game.
If it's all about television ratings, then why did Nine end the day's coverage into Adelaide at 3:30pm. They filled time until the news with some cooking show and Antiques Roadshow, and then padded the night out with Australia's Funniest Home Videos (how is that show still going?) and Two and a Half Men (because it's not on enough already :rolleyes:) before some Top Gear special. If you weren't already going (and with how hot it was in Adelaide yesterday, I doubt many left the house unless they had to for work or school or already planned it), I'd think that it not being on television would have just pissed you off rather than prompted you to get down to Adelaide Oval. I know it ended up being a pretty lacklustre game (and I managed to catch highlights replayed on Foxtel on Wednesday), but if there's an International game on, I want to watch it when it's happening and not have Mark Nicholas randomly say "and our Adelaide viewers will be leaving us now" midway through the first innings. Same went for the Adelaide Test too - we got about 2 hours coverage per day there. I know people can say "if you like it so much, why don't you just go to the game?", but IMO, cricket is a game better viewed on television in the comfort of your own home, especially when it's 38 degrees and very humid outside (as it was on Tuesday).
Carl Spackler
11 Feb 2010, 06:58
Domestically we should play the whole Shield season up in Darwin/Queensland during August-October. No one goes to the games anyway or watches them on tv so we should shift them out of the prime part of the cricket season.
Then every week have a Wednesday night, a Friday night and a Saturday night Twenty20. Twenty rounds where you play everyone home and away twice. A regular schedule like they do with AFL where you basically can plan your weekend around the games. People will get bored of them? Just like they get bored of 2 hour football games, eh?
It's all about TV ratings.
LMAO then it's dead.
The game on Tuesday night rated, wait for it, 18th, for the night!
That is, the 18th watched show for the evening. Could you get any worse? How many shows were played on FTA on Tuesday evening?
The ICC has to do away with 50 over limited cricket, and pour all resourced into T20.
Surely it sticks out like dogs balls by now, only the really naive could not agree?
Ill Chicken
11 Feb 2010, 10:23
LMAO then it's dead.
The game on Tuesday night rated, wait for it, 18th, for the night!
That is, the 18th watched show for the evening. Could you get any worse? How many shows were played on FTA on Tuesday evening?
The ICC has to do away with 50 over limited cricket, and pour all resourced into T20.
Surely it sticks out like dogs balls by now, only the really naive could not agree?
Tell me a game that has rated highly when you know the result by half time?
Cousin Jed
11 Feb 2010, 10:31
LMAO then it's dead.
The game on Tuesday night rated, wait for it, 18th, for the night!
That is, the 18th watched show for the evening. Could you get any worse? How many shows were played on FTA on Tuesday evening?
The ICC has to do away with 50 over limited cricket, and pour all resourced into T20.
Surely it sticks out like dogs balls by now, only the really naive could not agree?
The ratings for the ODI's had been consistently around 1.05 - 1.1 million up until this game. With other highly rated shows back on, nobody was going to watch this one which was over after 10 overs.
R00StaR
11 Feb 2010, 10:34
I like the idea of reducing the ODIs to 40 overs a side, that alone should ensure a far more agressive approach from batting teams. That together with better fixturing, such as suggested ODIs then tests and finish off with some 20/20)
King Elvis
11 Feb 2010, 11:51
8,000 at Adelaide yesterday!!! ODI cricket is finished.
Work day.
School day.
Bloody hot.
Adelaide Oval is a construction side.
But the biggest issue is that the Windies are shit, so nobody cares; we know we're going to smash them.
Ill Chicken has a good idea - make T20/ODI/Tests all count towards a 'Championship,' - make it yearly, something like; 5 points for a Test win, 3 for an ODI, 1 for a T20.
The other good idea was having the ODIs as a lead-in to the Tests, and the T20s as the 'finish.'
Wallaby
11 Feb 2010, 11:52
I like the idea of reducing the ODIs to 40 overs a side, that alone should ensure a far more agressive approach from batting teams. That together with better fixturing, such as suggested ODIs then tests and finish off with some 20/20)
Great Idea. Hey, why not go even further and reduce the overs to 20 a side? That would encourage an even more aggressive approach, plus we wouldn't have to wait 6 hours for a result.
R00StaR
11 Feb 2010, 12:32
Great Idea. Hey, why not go even further and reduce the overs to 20 a side? That would encourage an even more aggressive approach, plus we wouldn't have to wait 6 hours for a result.
Or how about we reduce it further again to around your concentration limits? Yeah i know your trying to make out your the only one with a clue about cricket. Id agree 20/20 is entertaining and the new fad, no doubt about that but the game that could easily go the way of the gorilla batsman, which is fine. But some of us would also like to see more of the truely great batsmen in the world, you know like the ones that can actually bat? Ok maybe you don’t.
Theres a place for all three formats imo, sounds like you only want 20/20s and nothing else. I actually hope 20/20 kicks on and offers aspiring cricketers a greater career path, which will be better for the game in general.
Yeah i know, i lost ya back on the second sentence.....too many words
I'm suprised Channel Nine are fighting for the survival of 50 cricket link (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/over-cricket-still-the-one-says-channel-9/story-e6frf9if-1225828923807)
I would've thought they'd prefer T20 cricket.It would be cheaper,way higher ratings which probably means they could charge advertisers more.
eddiesmith
11 Feb 2010, 12:53
If it's all about television ratings, then why did Nine end the day's coverage into Adelaide at 3:30pm.
I know people can say "if you like it so much, why don't you just go to the game?", but IMO, cricket is a game better viewed on television in the comfort of your own home, especially when it's 38 degrees and very humid outside (as it was on Tuesday).
Then write a complaint to the SACA, it is the venues who are against live coverage because they want the money from people coming to the game and crowds will drop if everyone can stay home
Melbourne and Sydney get full coverage because CH9 finally convinced the MCC and SCGT to sign a deal letting them show the games in full, especially relevant for the MCG as that will rarely sell out whilst the SCG was usually full anyway, not anymore though
mark taylor makes a good point, he likes to see batsmen make centuries.
King Elvis
11 Feb 2010, 15:05
mark taylor makes a good point, he likes to see batsmen make centuries.
I'd rather see a well compiled 80 that took a run a ball and was a challenge at times (as in, came in and made 15 off the first 30 balls, 45 off the next 40 and then 20 off the last 10), then a guy coming out and smashing 30 runs off of 15 balls.
bombersno1
11 Feb 2010, 20:18
I am not happy with the current format. But for the time being I would be happy to keep it at 50 overs.
I would make the following permanant rule changes.
1. Maximum of 5 men outside the circle the entire innings.
2. 2 men out during power plays.
3. Batting powerplay can be taken NO LATER than the 35th over.
4. 2 ball changes, one at the 20th over, one at the 40th over.
5. 4 men outside the circle until the 40th over where you can have 5.
Plus I would TRIAL these rules:
a) One over of a "batsman's choice of bowler". However he must have bowled in the innings so far. This must be taken between overs 40 and 45.
b) Fielding side's choice of bowler to bowl an extra over (11 overs for 1 bowler)
Damon_3388
11 Feb 2010, 22:36
I am not happy with the current format. But for the time being I would be happy to keep it at 50 overs.
I would make the following permanant rule changes.
1. Maximum of 5 men outside the circle the entire innings.
2. 2 men out during power plays.
3. Batting powerplay can be taken NO LATER than the 35th over.
4. 2 ball changes, one at the 20th over, one at the 40th over.
5. 4 men outside the circle until the 40th over where you can have 5.
Plus I would TRIAL these rules:
a) One over of a "batsman's choice of bowler". However he must have bowled in the innings so far. This must be taken between overs 40 and 45.
b) Fielding side's choice of bowler to bowl an extra over (11 overs for 1 bowler)
To be honest, I'd prefer it if they just went back to the days where the only limitations were 2 men outside the circle in the first 15 overs, 10 overs per bowler and 50 overs per side.
Alberton_Magpie
12 Feb 2010, 12:20
Can you back this up with some figures?
yes, it is commonly known that the level on international cricket has increased over the past 5 years.
Also looking back over the past 10 years we have only lost 1 test series, how can you look forward to something when you already basically know the result.
Ill Chicken
12 Feb 2010, 13:00
yes, it is commonly known that the level on international cricket has increased over the past 5 years.
Also looking back over the past 10 years we have only lost 1 test series, how can you look forward to something when you already basically know the result.
No I asked you if you could back it up with some figures.
eddiesmith
12 Feb 2010, 13:08
yes, it is commonly known that the level on international cricket has increased over the past 5 years.
Also looking back over the past 10 years we have only lost 1 test series, how can you look forward to something when you already basically know the result.
??? Australia has lost a few more series than 1 over the last 10 years, they have lost twice just to England
Ill Chicken
12 Feb 2010, 13:18
??? Australia has lost a few more series than 1 over the last 10 years, they have lost twice just to England
I think he is talking about in Australia. But this is ODI's and we've lost three series in the last five years at least and tied one.
cynical
12 Feb 2010, 14:27
50 over cricket is much better than 20/20
the problem is Australia is way too dominant and we get boring batter friendly pitches
90% of games suck because we are playing dud sides like Pakistan and the West Indies
If we are going to play weak sides then play more 20/20. If we play strong sides then play mostly 50 over cricket. I'd rather 3 20/20 3 odi vs pakistan.
Make the pitches more bowler friendly so scores are at max 200-250. That way 1 good innings can decide the match and a few early wickets doesn't mean game over.
As played now Australia bat first get 270+ then whoever we are playing gets off to a bad start. The game is over and everyone is bored.
eddiesmith
12 Feb 2010, 14:30
I think he is talking about in Australia. But this is ODI's and we've lost three series in the last five years at least and tied one.
Its hard to keep up, but yeah the ODIs have actually been quite competitive over recent years, Australia still manage to win when it counts, but with them often experimenting at home it can bring some upsets. I dont think any ODI series is over before it starts.
The other thing about talking about the struggling crowds is next year there is a strong chance of massive crowds at all games, in all forms. It is not neccasarily a case of interest in the game waning, its more a lack of competition, however if Gayle unleashes in the next 2 games and the Windies go to Melbourne with the series alive, 50,000 is very likely
The Adelaide crowd was just bad luck, Melbourne had about 15,000 to a game v England a few years ago, not because people didnt care, but because it was Saturday afternoon and 38 degrees
GoldenSky
12 Feb 2010, 15:10
Isn't it funny how we haven't had any players 'resting' this summer? :rolleyes:
Cricket Australia deserves the low crowds this summer with the way they have treated the paying public over the last 5-10 years.
stmookeyj
12 Feb 2010, 16:04
The Adelaide crowd was just bad luck, Melbourne had about 15,000 to a game v England a few years ago, not because people didnt care, but because it was Saturday afternoon and 38 degrees
I actually think that day in Melbourne was over 40 degrees.
What will further dilute the crowds will be a move to the olympic stadium, one of the worst oval sport venues ever created.
Damon_3388
12 Feb 2010, 17:43
Isn't it funny how we haven't had any players 'resting' this summer? :rolleyes:
Australia has been rotating and resting players all through the recent ODIs :confused:
Ill Chicken
12 Feb 2010, 17:44
I actually think that day in Melbourne was over 40 degrees.
What will further dilute the crowds will be a move to the olympic stadium, one of the worst oval sport venues ever created.
If you are talking about Stadium Australia, I've only been there once, it wasn't for cricket but it was awesome.
ManWithNoName
12 Feb 2010, 19:09
I am not happy with the current format. But for the time being I would be happy to keep it at 50 overs.
I would make the following permanant rule changes.
1. Maximum of 5 men outside the circle the entire innings.
2. 2 men out during power plays.
3. Batting powerplay can be taken NO LATER than the 35th over.
4. 2 ball changes, one at the 20th over, one at the 40th over.
5. 4 men outside the circle until the 40th over where you can have 5.
Plus I would TRIAL these rules:
a) One over of a "batsman's choice of bowler". However he must have bowled in the innings so far. This must be taken between overs 40 and 45.
b) Fielding side's choice of bowler to bowl an extra over (11 overs for 1 bowler)
Geez give the bowlers a chance.
Durham Hawks
12 Feb 2010, 19:27
terrible opposition and ridiculous ticket prices have hurt this summer
if it was india and south africa out here then we'd be getting some great entertainment and there'd be life in 50 over cricket for sure
John Dorian
12 Feb 2010, 20:17
They gotta play the tests in Late November-December-Early Jan (Sydney test) and during this period only.
Make sure the ODI's are during the school holidays.
It's all about the scheduling, no one turns up to these games in Feb because everyone is either at work or at school.
If it was like this, crowds would increase by at least 50%.
Add a couple of different, but simple rules to the ODI to make it better to watch and you have bigger crowds.